Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Sox sign Shane Victorino to 3-year deal


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
369 replies to this topic

#101 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20638 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:36 PM

I don't like either signing, particularly, but if you think they have the money to overpay Gomes then this is basically the same deal. You overpay to get the guy for three years, it's not going to even bring you close to the luxury tax, and you can ditch him before he turns 35. Yes it's more expensive than Gomes but it's not going to constrain their future spending and Shane should be able to bring more to the table. I don't get the extreme negative reaction on this one.


The difference is how they fit onto the roster and what their expected playing time will be. Victorino is being brought in to start, Gomes was brought in as a platoon player at the most. If Ellsbury isn't about to be traded, Victorino is a poor fit at best in right field. I pointed out a scenario above using Bill James' projection for him at the plate and a regressed version of his UZR from last year where he wouldn't be an awful player next year, but that doesn't mean he makes sense in right field as the roster is currently constructed.

There's a lot of off season remaining, so it's definitely too early to start asserting this move means x, y and z about the front office, but at the moment it's a bit tough to see a lot of upside to this signing. Hopefully the front office's plan becomes more clear in the next few days or weeks and this looks better in hindsight.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 04 December 2012 - 05:38 PM.


#102 Edelpeddle

  • 273 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:37 PM

The bolded is why you're getting the extreme negative reaction. 3/$38M would be a good deal IF Victorino can somehow find a way to be the player he was in 2009. As is, the Red Sox are more likely to get the .700 OPS guy who doesn't get on base and has no power, for whom $13M is a gross overpay. This team can't afford to spend money on wishful thinking and the unlikely chance that Victorino's off year was simply a bump in the road and not the beginning of a decline into uselessness.


To be fair, it's not like 2009 is an outlier for him. He was a consistently good player 2006-2011.

#103 cahlton

  • 508 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:37 PM

Rany Jazayerli@jazayerli
I know this phrase is incredibly played out, but my God have the Red Sox jumped the shark.


Am I wrong to think that Ichiro on a one-year deal would have been a better option?

Edit: formatting.

Edited by cahlton, 04 December 2012 - 05:39 PM.


#104 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23112 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:37 PM

Am I wrong to think that Ichiro on a one-year deal would have been a better option?

Anyone would have been better on a 1 year deal.

#105 Paul M


  • SoSH Member


  • 10381 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:38 PM

At least he's a switch-hitter but can't hit RHP that well at all and he's your RF? I know 3 year deals are better than 5 or 7 but I am struck but the level of risk they are chasing and the upside is limited. Past their prime players...I think pendulum has broken and chemistty/character is dictating things. The 2003/2004 Red Sox were characters and "idiots" but they were basically the best team in spite of that. I imagine they will sign one of the decent veteran starters and maybe trade for another but I wonder if these 3-year signings coincide with another 3 years without a playoff series win? I was lukewarm on Napoli, and really am disgusted by this.

#106 Toe Nash

  • 3016 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:39 PM

The bolded is why you're getting the extreme negative reaction. 3/$38M would be a good deal IF Victorino can somehow find a way to be the player he was in 2009. As is, the Red Sox are more likely to get the .700 OPS guy who doesn't get on base and has no power, for whom $13M is a gross overpay. This team can't afford to spend money on wishful thinking and the unlikely chance that Victorino's off year was simply a bump in the road and not the beginning of a decline into uselessness.

The guy he was in 2011 was pretty good too (Actually from 2006-2011). It's not like they are signing the guy off of one career year.

Edited by Toe Nash, 04 December 2012 - 05:39 PM.


#107 Diamond Don Aase

  • 480 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:40 PM

So, a week ago they signed Gomes for 2/$10. A few people pointed out that seemed like a lot and they'd rather try to fill the bench spot with lower-cost guys. Those people were shot down by others saying that the Sox had tons of money to spend and it wasn't a long-term commitment so it wasn't going to hamstring them in the future when the prospects were maturing.

So now they (probably) sign a guy coming off a down year, but who does more things than Gomes, specifically steals bases and plays defense. Enough to be a decent starting option with maybe All-Star upside if he can find his old magic for a season or two. They sign him for 3/$38 (probably). And all of a sudden it's way too much money and a sign they are back to the Carl Crawford ways of thinking?

I don't like either signing, particularly, but if you think they have the money to overpay Gomes then this is basically the same deal. You overpay to get the guy for three years, it's not going to even bring you close to the luxury tax, and you can ditch him before he turns 35. Yes it's more expensive than Gomes but it's not going to constrain their future spending and Shane should be able to bring more to the table. I don't get the extreme negative reaction on this one.


The Sox have committed $48 million to a pair of players, neither of which should be a full-time starter for the length of their contract. What's not to love? I only hope that Andre Dawson and Billy Hatcher are available to attend the joint introductory press conference.

#108 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 9588 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:40 PM

Rosenthal:

Victorino and #RedSox: Three years, $39M.

https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/276093395213115392
link to tweet

#109 TheYellowDart5


  • Hustle and bustle


  • 8597 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:40 PM

The guy he was in 2011 was pretty good too (Actually from 2006-2011). It's not like they are signing the guy off of one career year.


Right, I'm aware that Shane Victorino was good for more than one year. My larger point still stands. This is a signing with little potential upside and a lot of potential downside. I don't see how that's a good thing.

#110 Plantiers Wart

  • 2625 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:40 PM

Christ - Mike Cameron wasn't available? If you are going to overpay for three years, dump the money on Hamilton. If Texas is his only option now, it will be three or four years at best.

#111 allaboutthesox

  • 2631 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:42 PM

:barf:


Just got home and this is the one thing that came to mind reading the topic of this thread. Did anyone let the front office know that Victorino struggles to hit RHP or even get on base vs RHP?

#112 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 9588 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:43 PM

McAdam says exact same contract given to Napoli.

#113 Plantiers Wart

  • 2625 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:44 PM

Mike Napoli will now sue his agent for malpractice.

#114 In my lifetime

  • 392 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:44 PM

Fangraphs, Sarris, with an article pegs his value to the RS at 34M over 3 years. Take it with 34M grains of salt. ~12% overpay according to his figures -- not great, but probably not worth jumping off a bridge about and certainly nothing like Crawford or Lackey signings.
http://www.fangraphs...-right-fielder/

Edited by In my lifetime, 04 December 2012 - 05:45 PM.


#115 Edelpeddle

  • 273 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:44 PM

Right, I'm aware that Shane Victorino was good for more than one year. My larger point still stands. This is a signing with little potential upside and a lot of potential downside. I don't see how that's a good thing.


I think you're ignoring the upside of having one of the best defensive corner outfielders in baseball in the largest right field in baseball. You may also be ignoring having the upside of a capable backup centerfielder for Ellsbury considering he's played less than 75 games two of the last three seasons.

#116 nvalvo


  • SoSH Member


  • 7695 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:45 PM

This is the worst. I would have greatly preferred Ichiro for one year, and that is — let's face it — a pretty stupid idea. This is just awful. Think about it: Pagan got 4/$40 from SF. I'd have much preferred to give him 3/$40 than give 3/$37 to Victorino.

I'm only hoping this means they are trading Ellsbury for an absolute haul.

edit: A lot of my animosity to Victorino comes from watching him with the Dodgers, where — at least in games I saw, mostly against SF — he didn't hit and played visibly poor defense. He really looked so awful that the Pence/Victorino ex-Phillies OF contrast looked like a plus for *SF*, and Pence didn't hit a lick. That is admittedly anecdotal.

Edited by nvalvo, 04 December 2012 - 05:51 PM.


#117 LondonSox

  • 4689 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:46 PM

This is a fucking joke right?
I'm not laughing, but if it's cancelled I'll laugh.

This a horrendous horrendous horrible horrible signing. He's going to be replacement level in year 2 or 3 at best.
I can't stand this move. My wife is a phillies fan and I live on the west coast the decline is real and big. I guess we need one albatross contract huh.

#118 Stu Nahan

  • 3799 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:47 PM

Getting bailed out of bad contracts and turning around and reallocating the money this poorly reeks of incompetence. This is another stupid overpay by a front office that has seemed to specialize in them over the last few years.

#119 Toe Nash

  • 3016 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:48 PM

The difference is how they fit onto the roster and what their expected playing time will be. Victorino is being brought in to start, Gomes was brought in as a platoon player at the most. If Ellsbury isn't about to be traded, Victorino is a poor fit at best in right field. I pointed out a scenario above using Bill James' projection for him at the plate and a regressed version of his UZR from last year where he wouldn't be an awful player next year, but that doesn't mean he makes sense in right field as the roster is currently constructed.

There's a lot of off season remaining, so it's definitely too early to start asserting this move means x, y and z about the front office, but at the moment it's a bit tough to see a lot of upside to this signing. Hopefully the front office's plan becomes more clear in the next few days or weeks and this looks better in hindsight.


What are the options for RF?
Ross? Likely to get close to this money, probably not an ideal defensive option.
Kalish? With injuries, honestly hasn't done much since 2010.
Bradley needs more time and is a CF, hopefully.
Swisher is a butcher in right and is getting a bigger deal than this.
Hamilton likely getting a huge deal.

Given the market I'm not sure I see a better option unless you go with Kalish which has the potential to be really bad, or make a huge signing on Swisher or Hamilton which is what got the team into trouble over the last two years.

Actually the difference in roles is important between Gomes and Victorino -- Gomes can't play the outfield well, so he seems like the kind of player someone should be able to find cheaper (as was pointed out in the thread). I'm not sure there are very many outfielders available who can play acceptable or better defense in CF and RF and hit at an average level. Getting a guy like that on a three-year deal is really not the worst thing in the world, especially when it takes you nowhere close to the luxury tax.

#120 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20638 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:49 PM

What if the hold up with the potential Royals deal was Dayton Moore wanting some kind of outfield return on top of Lester for Myers+? Maybe that plus is a reliever or another prospect or something, but considering how many of us thought Lester for Myers straight up would be an easy win for the Sox, perhaps there was more to those discussions than we were able to see and Victorino's signing is the first step in pulling that trade package together?

#121 Rovin Romine

  • 2933 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:51 PM

I think the upside issue is what's most puzzling to me.

If Victorino is displaced to RF (Ellsbury in 2013, JBJ in 2014?) he's not an ideal player for a corner OF position, even in Fenway's large RF.

But, if they signed him for CF insurance (Ellsbury is traded, and/or JBJ stumbles) the question is, is Victorino really the guy you want in CF in 2014/15?

The Sox must be betting heavily that 2012 was an outlier.

#122 BosRedSox5


  • Stuart Smalley devotee


  • 1258 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:51 PM

If the rumors are true and the Sox brain trust has come up with a PED that is untraceable by modern testing methods, then this is an awesome deal.

#123 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28120 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:52 PM

What's the plan? Defense doesn't matter, no it does. Character matters, or it doesn't. This team is all over the place.

#124 Paradigm


  • juju all over his tits


  • 5897 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:52 PM

Let's put a good spin on this -- we are talking money and roster spots, not prospect trades. So at least they can still develop their young players. They won't have anywhere to play them, but at least they will have them.


I don't like the deal because I don't think Victorino is a good hitter, but I'll buy this. The team has one of the best farm systems in baseball and some money to spend. Also, pitching seems like a losing investment in this market.

If he has a decent season in 2013 -- let's say he slugs .400, stays healthy, and plays capable defense -- he's still very tradable.

I agree with Yecul here. As long as we're not trading our top prospects, I'm fine with overpaying a guy by a few million a year.

#125 mikeford


  • woolwich!


  • 16999 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:54 PM

career OPS+ of 102 is worth 13 mil a year eh?

it pays to be mediocre.

man has this front office completely lost its way.

#126 LondonSox

  • 4689 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:54 PM

One other note if teams were competing with this offer inflation has gone nuts.

#127 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 20644 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:55 PM

The Victorino and Gomes signings will do nothing to dispel concerns about Cherington's talent evaluation skills. After seeing what Cherington has done with the financial flexibility he so cherished, I wish the Red Sox had kept Gonzalez, Crawford and Beckett -- if only because that would have tied Cherington's hands.

The team's talent level continues to decline.

#128 Trlicek's Whip

  • 2951 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:56 PM

So now they (probably) sign a guy coming off a down year, but who does more things than Gomes, specifically steals bases and plays defense. Enough to be a decent starting option with maybe All-Star upside if he can find his old magic for a season or two.


Everyone's bringing up age, but Victorino was hindered by a wrist injury all season long and it's likely he came back too soon in 2012. His sapped power reflects that, as does his relative consistency even in 2012 though the counting stats were lower. This wasn't a fork-in-back cliff dive.

While he's not a high OBP machine it's usually an Ellsburyesque mid .300's, and his CT% was in 2012 - and is historically - in the high 80's.

If he's not stinging the ball because of the wrist then less FB's are turning into multiple bases or HR's and it probably leads to other bad habits, like terrible swings in general and poor approaches to his AB's.

I expect the Sox did due diligence and hope that Victorino didn't have Crawford wrist implants installed.

I don't get the extreme negative reaction on this one.


It's been slightly more than one wretched calendar year in Sox history. And it's SoSH so per the norm seizing on every scrap with Memento-style short-term memory loss and a fanatical rush to extremes i.e. "BEST DEAL EVER" or "THEY HAVE LEARNED NOTHING." But since the Sox have sucked so bad and have been negative fun for what seems like aeons, it's like a concentrated dosage of hysteria when a defensible move is made.

Living and dying on every tweet all winter long. Fantastic!

Edited by Trlicek's Whip, 04 December 2012 - 06:12 PM.


#129 nvalvo


  • SoSH Member


  • 7695 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:56 PM

I'm looking through his numbers. His BABIP in 2012 was a touch low at .278, and it was the same in Philly and LA. But weirdly, his LD rate spiked from 15.8 percent to 21.5, without the BABIP changing.

That has to be an artifact of batted ball classifications, right?

#130 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20638 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:57 PM

Actually the difference in roles is important between Gomes and Victorino -- Gomes can't play the outfield well, so he seems like the kind of player someone should be able to find cheaper (as was pointed out in the thread). I'm not sure there are very many outfielders available who can play acceptable or better defense in CF and RF and hit at an average level. Getting a guy like that on a three-year deal is really not the worst thing in the world, especially when it takes you nowhere close to the luxury tax.


You'll notice that I'm not complaining about the money, I'm confused about how he'll fit on the roster. I'd rather they go 4 years on Swisher than 3 on Victorino. Swisher had him beat in fWAR by 0.6 and rWAR by 2.4 last year. Fangraphs' UZR, which benefits Victorino more than Swisher, has Swisher as a positive defender in the outfield in each of the last three seasons. I know he looks clumsy out there, but he's not awful in right defensively. Victorino is certainly a better defender, but Swisher is a vastly superior hitter. Shane makes up for that a little on the base paths, but I don't thinks it's illogical to prefer Swisher on a slightly longer deal.

Add to this the fact that right now, Iglesias is in the lineup and Victorino's bat becomes hard to swallow. Maybe this means they plan to find another SS, though. I don't know. Right now the roster doesn't fit together in a way that makes me feel like this team can contend in 2013.

#131 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 10155 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:57 PM

Regardless of whether you love the signing or not, I defy anyone to prove to me that 3/$39mm was an "overpay". And don't use Tweets or agent/front-office planted articles to make your case.

Note that you can only determine whether a team "overpaid" someone by having all the information that was available including what all other interested teams were offering in terms of dollars, years or AAV as well as the minimum amount that Victorino and his agents would accept. In other words, just because you don't like the player or the contract doesn't mean the Red Sox overpaid for his services. They may have paid the going market rate for Victorino. That you wouldn't have done the same does not make it an overpay.

As a side note, this move isn't horrible in that it gives the Sox a hedge against Ellsbury's departure one way or another and a hiccup/stalling in JBJ's progression. Its only money and there doesn't seem to be a huge opportunity cost aside from a Hamilton signing (which likely carries significant downside).

#132 Toe Nash

  • 3016 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:58 PM

He's going to be replacement level in year 2 or 3 at best.


You guys are seeing the projections posted in this thread, right?

The only way he's replacement level is if his defense falls off a cliff. Possible, but unlikely. The "upside" on the signing is that he hits like he did for the 5 years before last year. If he's somewhere in between last year and those years, he's a decent starting outfielder. The downside is he's horrible and they end up eating some money that they can afford to eat and releasing him.

Is that worth $13 mil a year? Well, maybe. Pagan got 4/$40, which may be a hometown discount, and he's just one year younger than Victorino. Pagan over the last three years: 109 OPS+, Victorino: 106 OPS+.

It's an overpay but who MLB is swimming in money and it's not mine. Supposedly the Indians were competing for him too, so that's the cost of an outfielder. They could have signed Upton...

#133 cahlton

  • 508 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:58 PM

Increasingly it's looking like the creativity and ingenuity that was a hallmark of the front office between 2003 and 2011 departed with Theo Epstein (and Josh Byrne and Peter Woodfork and Jed Hoyer). I hate to say this, because he seems like a decent guy, but Ben Cherington doesn't appear to be more than a replacement-level GM.

#134 The Filthy One

  • 698 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:00 PM

Unless this is coupled with a deal sending Ellsbury out, this would seem to put Kalish into a straight platoon with Gomes in left. I can live with that. In fact, they probably only need to carry 4 outfielders with this group. It's not the worst signing ever. And it's not the kind of signing that will stop them from doing anything (unlike giving Hamilton 6 years or 100 Million +).

#135 Edelpeddle

  • 273 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:02 PM

The team, as currently constructed, is looking pretty strong defensively. We have gold glove caliber defensive players at second base, shortstop, centerfield and now in right field. We have above average defensive players at catcher and third base. And our only two below average defensive players are at arguably the least important defensive positions on the baseball diamond (first base and left field).

#136 Paradigm


  • juju all over his tits


  • 5897 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:04 PM

I'm not a huge fan, but it's for three years.

Teams can survive a bad three-year deal.

Four or more years, and those contracts become really hard to manage.

Edited by Paradigm, 04 December 2012 - 06:06 PM.


#137 Toe Nash

  • 3016 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:04 PM

You'll notice that I'm not complaining about the money, I'm confused about how he'll fit on the roster. I'd rather they go 4 years on Swisher than 3 on Victorino. Swisher had him beat in fWAR by 0.6 and rWAR by 2.4 last year. Fangraphs' UZR, which benefits Victorino more than Swisher, has Swisher as a positive defender in the outfield in each of the last three seasons. I know he looks clumsy out there, but he's not awful in right defensively. Victorino is certainly a better defender, but Swisher is a vastly superior hitter. Shane makes up for that a little on the base paths, but I don't thinks it's illogical to prefer Swisher on a slightly longer deal.

Fair enough, but Swisher is playing in a tiny RF which may be a factor in the metrics, is going to get probably two or more years than this, which makes a big difference, and I hate his face.

Add to this the fact that right now, Iglesias is in the lineup and Victorino's bat becomes hard to swallow. Maybe this means they plan to find another SS, though. I don't know. Right now the roster doesn't fit together in a way that makes me feel like this team can contend in 2013.

This argument I don't get (and I see it a lot). If the team thinks Victorino is a 4-win guy (certainly a big if), why does it matter that most of his contribution comes on defense? They can't have more than one glove-first guy on the team? You win by preventing runs or scoring runs. There's some diminishing returns on the extreme ends of that but I don't think the Sox are in danger. They'll still have solid hitters at most of the other positions.

#138 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 9588 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:07 PM

An NL exec on the Shane Victorino contract: "They all surprise us. But that one shocked us."

https://twitter.com/jcrasnick/status/276100180577763328
link to tweet

#139 LondonSox

  • 4689 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:08 PM

You guys are seeing the projections posted in this thread, right?

The only way he's replacement level is if his defense falls off a cliff. Possible, but unlikely. The "upside" on the signing is that he hits like he did for the 5 years before last year. If he's somewhere in between last year and those years, he's a decent starting outfielder. The downside is he's horrible and they end up eating some money that they can afford to eat and releasing him.

Is that worth $13 mil a year? Well, maybe. Pagan got 4/$40, which may be a hometown discount, and he's just one year younger than Victorino. Pagan over the last three years: 109 OPS+, Victorino: 106 OPS+.

It's an overpay but who MLB is swimming in money and it's not mine. Supposedly the Indians were competing for him too, so that's the cost of an outfielder. They could have signed Upton...


Well unless ellsbury is gone this year, and JBJ isn't ready next year he's not playing CF which seriously hurts his defensive value.
I hadn't heard about his wrist injury so maybe if that's better it's an ok deal. That's a lot to gamble. My best estimate is that he is a replacement level rf 2 of 3 years.
If he plays well next year and they trade him, then hey good move so there is space for me not hate this deal but there also a chance I win the lottery next time I buy a ticket. But it's a shit chance so I generally pass on that too

#140 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 9588 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:09 PM

Cherington said wouldn't rule out adding another outfielder.

https://twitter.com/ESPNJoeyMac/status/276100827494637568
link to tweet

We trading Ellsbury or what?

#141 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 10155 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:14 PM

Increasingly it's looking like the creativity and ingenuity that was a hallmark of the front office between 2003 and 2011 departed with Theo Epstein (and Josh Byrne and Peter Woodfork and Jed Hoyer). I hate to say this, because he seems like a decent guy, but Ben Cherington doesn't appear to be more than a replacement-level GM.


Really? Seems to me that, this signing aside, that Cherrington has been far more creative and ingenious than Theo Epstein if only by undoing the Gordian knot of contracts (via the Punto trade) that Epstein had saddled this team with over the past few years.

If a 3yr $39mm deal for Victorino is going to cost the Sox something other than money, then they are in worse shape than we thought.

#142 Frisbetarian


  • ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫


  • 4648 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:15 PM

Over the past 5 seasons, Shane Victorino has played a grand total of 41 innings in right field, and 40 of those were in 2008. I think this signing is a precursor to an Ellsbury trade.

#143 mikeford


  • woolwich!


  • 16999 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:16 PM

Victorino had a 0.4 dWAR last year, where are you guys getting this "he's a gold glove RF" idea from?

#144 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16026 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:17 PM

Buchholz's wife tweeted this picture of Clay and Victorino on a boat in Maui today. Must be in his charity event.

http://twitter.com/L...6543872/photo/1

#145 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11028 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:19 PM

Over the past 5 seasons, Shane Victorino has played a grand total of 41 innings in right field, and 40 of those were in 2008. I think this signing is a precursor to an Ellsbury trade.


Yep. I have no idea why people are saying he is a gold glove corner outfielder. Ellsbury/Salty are on the block.

#146 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16547 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:20 PM

Over the past 5 seasons, Shane Victorino has played a grand total of 41 innings in right field, and 40 of those were in 2008. I think this signing is a precursor to an Ellsbury trade.

I hope you're right. It's insanely stupid otherwise. It might be just dumb if Ellsbury's going to be traded.

Ugh. I don't like this move.

I was just talking with a friend who's a very knowledgeable fan last night and we both said that we were perfectly fine rooting for a team on the way up but not quite ready in 2013. Apparently that perspective is too rare in the minds of the Red Sox. Victorino looked like shit for much of last year. To give him THIS contract is ridiculous.

#147 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30161 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:20 PM

Victorino had a 0.4 dWAR last year, where are you guys getting this "he's a gold glove RF" idea from?


Farrell on XM 15 minutes ago

#148 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20638 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:21 PM

Fair enough, but Swisher is playing in a tiny RF which may be a factor in the metrics, is going to get probably two or more years than this, which makes a big difference, and I hate his face.


This might be the most logical thing said in the entire thread. That said, you're right that RF in Fenway is thougher than in Yankee Stadium. I just disagree that Swisher is a butcher out there.

#149 Div School Sox Fan

  • 1571 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:23 PM

FG war: 3.8, 5.9, 3.3

BR war: 5.2, 1.3, 1.1

difference in defensive systems on full display.

You're misreading the table. Actual numbers:

FG war: 3.8, 5.9, 3.3

BR war: 2.8, 5.2, 2.4

DRS and UZR have nearly identical ratings of Victorino - regressed averages of +3 and +2 respectively over the last three years. The difference between the two numbers is very consistently 5-10 runs per season, and it's mostly a function of the league adjustment. B-Ref significantly discounts NL numbers, while FG makes no league adjustment that I know of.

#150 allaboutthesox

  • 2631 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:24 PM

https://twitter.com/ESPNJoeyMac/status/276100827494637568
link to tweet

We trading Ellsbury or what?


If it is for Felix Hernandez then I have no complaints. I just don't see how the Sox can even entertain trading Ellsbury at this point. It seems that the deal with Victorino has given more bargaining power to Ellsbury and the Sox actually need Ellsbury now more than ever it would seem. Gomes and Victorino? Hardly an OF where the Sox can afford to offload Jacoby.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users